If we prohibit victims of gun violence from suing firearms dealers and manufacturers, then that means we’re providing a special immunity to firearms dealers and manufacturers that we do not provide to dealers and manufacturers of other items. Why should gun manufacturers and distributors or dealers receive this special immunity? Medications and medical equipment like pacemakers save lives — as in, that’s literally their purpose for existing — and yet we do not grant THEIR dealers and manufacturers immunity from suits. Again: why should firearm manufacturers and dealers be any different? …Because they’re providing a product that is “essential” — not to LIFE, the way medicine and medical equipment are, but to a well-regulated militia — and there’s some kind of special considerations that should be given just because the Second Amendment can be invoked in the same sentence? If that were the case, then why stop at firearm manufacturers/dealers? Vehicles are essential to well-regulated militias. Should automotive and other vehicular manufacturers and dealers be similarly immune from ever being sued if any of their products result in mass injury or death? And why stop there? Uniforms also seem pretty essential to militias; should clothing manufacturers be similarly immune from any legal suit? Where do we draw the line? Assuming we’re not advocating for the complete abolition of any and all product liability across all industries… then I have to ask again: what is it that makes firearm manufacturers and dealers special and deserving of this unique immunity from civil suits? It can’t be just because we know firearms are inherently dangerous when improperly used; the same is true for medicine, for automobiles, and for alcoholic beverages… and yet if those industries made their products available en mass without taking steps to minimize risk of public harm, or to ensure products aren’t being sold to someone unqualified to purchase them or being sold in amounts an expert would reasonably interpret as likely indicative of unlawful intents… Well, we’d allow those manufacturers or dealers to be sued. Of coursed whether the plaintiff would win a case against them or not would depend on the specifics of the case, the company’s potential negligence, et cetera… but we’d still allow the suits to be brought. We wouldn’t give those manufacturers and dealers immunity from civil suits, and we shouldn’t give firearm manufacturers and dealers immunity, either.
Be the first to reply to this disagreement.